Aldous Husley Quote / Brave New World

[PolyNewbie]

"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the

all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers

control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because

they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned,

in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda,

newspaper editors and schoolteachers." --

Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) Author Source: Forward to 'Brave New World', 1932

See Huxley Speech in this short list This was Huxleys last speech. Its 15 minutes long. Pls listen to what he says before commenting.

This is the reality of today.

[Wilber]

Bull

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry...no Huxley dystopia yet. Chairman Mao made speeches too. Both were wrong.

[Liam]

Sorry, but one need only look at the respondents who've replied to see that Huxley was right. Right wingers and Bush cyclons love their unquestioning servitude to the dear leader. Anyone who even remotely implies that Bush has anything but the glint of golden, dappled sunshine on his cheek is a threat to be dealt with.

[PolyNewbie]

Sorry, but one need only look at the respondents who've replied to see that Huxley was right.

I was going to point that out after getting a few more response. It should be obvious.

Did you listen to the speech Liam ?

[stignasty]

"But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the destruction -- of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance."

[PolyNewbie]

so what do you think of that stignasty ?

[stignasty]

so what do you think of that stignasty ?

First off, I apologize for not referencing the quote. It was taken from Orwell's 1984, in the section of Goldstein's manifesto.

I think that Orwell and Huxley were keen observers of the societies that they lived in. But, like Marx a century earlier were a bit short sighted in their scope. Like Marx, who witnessed the industrial revolution and was unable to fathom conditions changing without revolution, their writings assume the worst about people and create fictional worlds extrapolated out of the events of their day. Huxley and Orwell lived in a world in which democracies were replaced with totalitarian dictatorships from both the right and left. Brave New World came out when Hitler was rising to power, 1984 was written as the Iron Curtain was being put up. From that outlook, the world was heading down a pretty unpleasant road. That's what they were writing about.

What Huxley and Orwell didn't foresee, is that the "proles" would become educated and frustrated enough to take matters into their own hands (and for one thing pull down the Iron Curtain). On the other hand, we do see daily the people who support their beliefs with incorrect information, rumours and outright lies. This site is full of the climate change "debate" and your own 9/11 "truths" that demonstrate our willful ignorance to latch on to things that have questionable origins. People believe not exclusively what they're told to believe, they believe what they want to believe.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's easy to snip a quote here or there that seems relevant, you really can't use these writings as some sort of prophecy. To quote Huxley and claim that we're living in a modern totalitarian state is simply inappropriate. Your ability to write about the things you do is great evidence of that.

Anyway, I'm just a schoolteacher, one of Huxley's bad guys, don't listen to me.

[PolyNewbie]

stignasty:own 9/11 "truths" that demonstrate our willful ignorance to latch on to things that have questionable origins.

Example ?

Stignasty:To quote Huxley and claim that we're living in a modern totalitarian state is simply inappropriate. Your ability to write about the things you do is great evidence of that.

Listen to the speech.

[PolyNewbie]

stignasty:To quote Huxley and claim that we're living in a modern totalitarian state is simply inappropriate.

There is the missing trillions that isn't being investigated, the torture & illegal prisons, war crimes, setting aside of the Geneva convention, use of cruel weapons for murder of inncent children and women in Falluja, and lobbyists lobbying for the White house to not write legislation that would make foreign trafficking of children for the sex trade illegal as reported in mainstream.

[stignasty]

There is the missing trillions that isn't being investigated, the torture & illegal prisons, war crimes, setting aside of the Geneva convention, use of cruel weapons for murder of inncent children and women in Falluja, and lobbyists lobbying for the White house to not write legislation that would make foreign trafficking of children for the sex trade illegal as reported in mainstream.

Terrible things all. However, they do not equal totalitarianism.

[PolyNewbie]

The Patriot act and Military Commissions act is.

To make them love it is the task assigned,

in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda,

newspaper editors and schoolteachers

What would happen to you if you started telling your students about how the banks operate ? or about why we have wars and are constantly invading other countries ?

[stignasty]

What would happen to you if you started telling your students about how the banks operate ? or about why we have wars and are constantly invading other countries ?

I do tell my students how the banks operate. You won't be happy though because I don't give them the PolyNewbie curriculum. I teach them how banks operate in the real world. Although I don't teach that class anymore, I used to teach all about colonialism and modern day economic imperialism. It doesn't sound like you're familiar with the amount of latitude a teacher has with the curriculum (at least in Alberta). A teacher obviously couldn't go in and teach your conspiracy theories as fact, but it would be possible to discuss them for what they are while looking at how things really are.

Check it out. Social Studies 20, Topic B is especially relevant.

http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curric...al/soc10_00.pdf

[Canadian Blue]

Polynewbie, a teacher has attempted to teach conspiracy theories, and people weren't really happy about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra

[PolyNewbie]

I don't give them the PolyNewbie curriculum. I teach them how banks operate in the real world.

Funny, the economists I talk to - real ones say the ones you are learning from are lying.

So how do banks really operate ?

A teacher obviously couldn't go in and teach your conspiracy theories as fact

Its a scientific fact that 911 was an inside job but I bet you don't believe that. You think buildings look like they are being blown apart while they are collapsing ? You think they collapse straight down into their own footprint by themselves and melt at the bottom ?

[moderateamericain]

I don't give them the PolyNewbie curriculum. I teach them how banks operate in the real world.

Funny, the economists I talk to - real ones say the ones you are learning from are lying.

So how do banks really operate ?

A teacher obviously couldn't go in and teach your conspiracy theories as fact

Its a scientific fact that 911 was an inside job but I bet you don't believe that. You think buildings look like they are being blown apart while they are collapsing ? You think they collapse straight down into their own footprint by themselves and melt at the bottom ?

actually i posted a site that addressed most of the "scientific facts" that you posted and refuted a good deal of it. I also posted the 13 or so experts who fielded the study, but you ignored the post, actually, i believe you posted in response to it indirectly by saying the NIST report was a lie. But the post you gave me was so completley biased and I couldnt turn up a single name of the people who did the "studies". I have great news for you, when the secret police in the US start kicking down doors, until then im gonna have to go ahead and label this as wishful thinking.

[PolyNewbie]

The bottom line is this. Neither the NIST report nor the FEMA report address the actual collapse of the buildings. The NIST report was directed by Philip Zelikow, a self admitted propoganda expert. The FEMA report says their theory of how wtc7 collapse has a "very low degree of probability" but they do not consider anything else.

I don't recall any expert explaining how buildings just naturally collapse into their own footprint as a result of assymetrical damage and fires. Of course they do not because its impossible.

I don't recall your post and would be happy to look at your site. 911Myths and popular mechanics have turned out to be lies and straw men. You pick any point that either of them make and I will show you that (1) Its not a mainstream position of the truth movement or (2) The explaination violates basic scientific principle that can be intuitively understood.

Any attempt to explain how buildings can collapse directly straight down into their own footprint that I have seen can easily be shown to be idiotic and to violate basic scientific principle. I have had this arguement with many engineers.

I can also show many scientists and engineers, congressmen, ex intelligence heads, ex sentators, military men, white house advisors, etc that all think 911 was an inside job. This is not a "fringe" viewpoint just because you don't hear about it on TV.

You can only come up with about 5 or 6 engineers or scientists that are willing to state that they think 911 happened as the government say it did.

[PolyNewbie]

Officials question 911 report

They all make statements here saying they want a new investigation. Look further into their own websites and you find that they think it was an inside job.

There are more engineers and scientists that come from high level positions in the white house that think 911 was an inside job than you can find from all your other sources.

Van Romero (mining/explosives engineer) said it too, two weeks later he retracted his statement and shortly after became a highly paid White House lobbyist. Thats how it all works.

[PolyNewbie]

Also all the engineers that say they agree with the government explanation of 911 are highly dependent onh government contracts to make their living. This is true of most civil/structural engineers - pretty much all of whom have never formally studies a building collapse which involves complex non linear behaviour of materials. Getting a civil engineer to explain that collapse is like going to a proctologist because you have a toothache. They design to prevent collapses from ever happening.

Lots of engineers lie about the physical properties of materials to support the official version of 911. Structural steel doesn't melt from fuel fires yet melting was observed and stated to be a product of fuel fires by supporters of this official version. That alone should tell you something.

Read this. Its written by Paul Craig Roberts, a deputy economist from the Reagan era. He has lots of articles on 911 - he is also an engineer.

[obsidian]

i also think its interesting that people always say "the jet fuel weakened the steel so it collapsed". <---what holds up their house of lies

WOULDNT the impact instantly rupture the tanks, cause an initial blast, then the aviation fuel would puddle out. gas over that much surface area would burn off in minutes. paper burns at 451 farenheit, the office furniture, who knows, but definetly not enough to melt/weakend steel to the point of collapse.

if u dont believe me, try it outside. pool some gas into a basin; ignite and time it. do the same but spread the same amount of gas over 10x as much surface area and time it.

thats only for u idiots who don't realise that increases surface area=faster consumption

im not that great at physics, but would 3-10 minutes of the initial heat from the aviation fuel even be enough to heat up the steel to the supposed temperatures?